Friday, June 1, 2012

Venus Transit This Tuesday

Venus transited the Sun in June 2004 and will again next week. Venus transits occur in pairs separated by eight years. The last pair occurred in December of 1874 and 1882 and the next pair will occur in December 2117 and 2125. So next week this rarest of predictable astronomical events will occur for the last time in our lifetimes.

63 comments:

  1. As to 'predictable astronomical events'. My respect for 'predictable astronomical events' was greatly increased when I learned that the fine-tuning of the mass-density of the universe is balanced to within 1 in 10^60th which is equal to just one grain of sand:

    Here is the ‘grain of sand’ calculation:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/this-might-make-you-feel-rather-small/#comment-394591

    Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem
    Excerpt: If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

    Of course one of the most spectacular 'predictable astronomical events' is the solar eclipse by the moon. A 'predictable astronomical event' which 'strangely' allowed a major prediction of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (of starlight being curved by the warping of space-time by gravity) to be confirmed. Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez notes that that 'predictable astronomical event', of the solar eclipse, is also, 'coincidentally', a condition that is necessary for life on earth:

    Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    - Jay Richards

    further notes:

    The Privileged Planet - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw

    Thank God for Jupiter - July 2010
    Excerpt: The July 16, 1994 and July 19, 2009 collision events on Jupiter demonstrate just how crucial a role the planet plays in protecting life on Earth. Without Jupiter’s gravitational shield our planet would be pummeled by frequent life-exterminating events. Yet Jupiter by itself is not an adequate shield. The best protection is achieved via a specific arrangement of several gas giant planets. The most massive gas giant must be nearest to the life support planet and the second most massive gas giant the next nearest, followed by smaller, more distant gas giants. Together Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune provide Earth with this ideal shield.
    http://www.reasons.org/thank-god-jupiter

    Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011
    Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-gaps-fine-tuning-and-newtons-solar.html

    Milankovitch Cycle Design - Hugh Ross - August 2011
    Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive.
    http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design

    Here is another video of related 'observability correlation' interest;

    We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video
    http://vimeo.com/31940671

    ReplyDelete
  2. Clear skies everyone!

    Venus transit

    Speaking of planets...I found this interesting view of how much water there is on Earth. The blue marble is all the Earth's water

    ReplyDelete
  3. There you go again Dr. Hunter, completely ignoring the theory of evolution in favor of some fascinating wonder of the natural world. Why, explain, if you will, just how Venus could "transit" the sun when every school kid since Galileo knows that Venus "orbits" the sun. Why...er, wait, sorry. Wrong post! I was just geared to rant and jumped at the first thing I saw.
    Er...cool. Venus and so forth. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can you have intelligent design in critters and not in the solar system? If not ,why not?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Little do most atheists realize that the existence of evil itself necessitates the existence of Good. i.e. you cannot disprove God by pointing to evil, because for evil even to exist in reality good must exist in the first place. i.e. Evil is merely a departure from the way things 'ought' to be and thus evil cannot exist independently without objective morality! All a atheist does when he points to evil in this world is to point out the fact that this world is not perfectly good, Yet Christianity never claimed we were in heaven in the first place. i.e. by pointing to evil (the absence of good), the atheist actually affirms the Christian belief that we are in a fallen world.

      Does God Exist? - Finding a Good God in an Evil World
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708/

      In fact, as Dr. Hunter has pointed over and over again, it is not science but this type of theological argumentation, such as what kilo is presently using, that are the primary basis of Darwinian reasoning:

      This 'bad theology' was present from the beginning in Darwinian reasoning:

      Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
      Excerpt: 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

      'Natural Evil' is certainly not a problem for Christianity;

      Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010
      Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8).
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214a

      Nor is 'Natural Evil' a problem for Intelligent Design:

      Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig vs. Dr. Ayala - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg

      Delete
    2. It has always struck me as very strange that atheists are, for most part, often very angry with God:

      When Atheists Are Angry at God - 2011
      Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
      http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god

      And yet people who believe in God, yet who have been through very painful injuries or who have severe deformities of their bodies, people who by all rights should be very angry with God for allowing such to happen to them, are very often the very ones who are the most inspirational Christians to listen to. For instance, this following guy was burned over a large percentage of his body in a plane crash and yet has a positive attitude about life that is infectious:

      In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

      Likewise, the following guy doesn't even have any arms or legs, but he has motivated millions of fellow Christians with his positive attitude towards life:

      Nick Vujicic Fully Living for Jesus Christ - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ91fYMqR10

      Nick Vujicic - "Something More" Music Video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrV_ZvwZRvw

      Delete
  6. As a general rule unicorns are not capable of preventing a hideous calamity from befalling one's family. God is capable of preventing disasters. Usually the retort is that" we can not know God's plan" ,so you have a couple ways to respond. Fight or flee. Anger or submission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then you have atheists who simply find the concept of God as being unnecessary . Atheists,like theists,are not a homogeneous group. Unless you wish to stereotype.

      Delete
    2. But Atheists are the ones claiming that,,,

      “I think that God is about as unlikely as fairies, angels, hobgoblins.”
      (Richard Dawkins, Expelled)

      “Religion. I mean, it’s just fantasy, basically. It’s completely empty
      of any explanatory content. And it’s evil, as well.” (Peter Atkins, Expelled)

      Thus atheists are completely incoherent in their view of reality to be so angry at a God they claim not to believe in at all! The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that deep down inside, in their heart of hearts, atheists must have some type of belief that there is a God, but they are trying to deny that belief, however deep or subtle that belief may be, with anger. (for they certainly cannot do it by logic!)

      Delete
    3. I didn't claim atheists were a homogeneous group. In fact I cited a study,,,

      When Atheists Are Angry at God - 2011
      Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
      http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god

      which stated 'tend to be'

      as well I stated:

      "that atheists are, for most part, often very angry at God

      Thus your accusation of me stereotyping atheists is false.

      Delete
    4. Then prove your statement ," most" atheists are often angry at God? You have a survey of atheist's beliefs?

      Delete
    5. Other than " empirical studies" , maybe their anger is not direced towards in their opinion,an imaginary God but towards some of His followers.

      Delete
    6. “There is no problem of evil in an atheist's universe because there is no evil in an atheist's universe. On the atheist view, since there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard, and nothing is wrong. The torture of little children is not wrong in an atheist's universe. It may be painful, but it is not wrong. It is morally wrong in a theistic universe, and therefore, there is a problem of evil of perhaps the psychological or emotional sort, but philosophically the answer to the problem of evil is you don't have an absolute standard of good by which to measure evil in an atheist's universe. You can only have that in a theistic universe, and therefore, the very posing of the problem presupposes the Christian world view, rather than the atheist’s.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen, 1985

      Delete
    7. I take your change of subject as evidence of lack of evidence

      So you are saying anyone who encourages another to slaughter babies is evil? In every absolute case?

      Delete
    8. vel, lack of evidence for what? That atheists, for the most part, are more angry at God than theists? I cited a study and you merely questioned it, I'm not going to google the exact studies for you! Really! Do you own search! ,,, Tell you what if really you don't think atheists are irrationally angry with God, why don't you take a little stroll over to PZ Myers little den of vipers and pretend to defend Teleology and Design in nature for a while and see what that gets you!

      =====

      Richard Dawkins Approves Infanticide, not William Lane Craig! (mirror: drcraigvideos)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo

      Delete
    9. The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - audio of the 1985 debate available
      Excerpt: "The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,," - Dr. Greg Bahnsen, 1985
      http://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist

      Delete
    10. Have you read the study? It says some atheists may still harbor anger towards God, but it also reports 71% of theists report anger with God. So your statement remains unproven, it fact it appears that most theists tend to be angry with God. Isn't that interesting.

      You mistake dislike for religion for anger at God. There is a difference. How do you feel about Islam?Are you anger with their God?

      If God commands as He did the Jews to slaughter children, can it be an absolute moral standard?

      Delete
    11. vel you state:

      So your statement remains unproven,

      What statement?? My statement that 'Atheists tend to be the people most angry at God' or my statement that 'Atheists for the most part are irrationally angry at a God they don't believe in?"

      But that is precisely what the studies found:

      Anger at God common, even among atheists
      'In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers. A separate study also found this pattern among bereaved individuals.'
      http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/

      Thus the burning question, that Joe Carter raised in the article, that you are trying to dance around is still staring you in the face, 'Why are atheists so angry at a God they don't believe in? At least the believer, who has suffered unjust loss, or pain etc,, has some justification for his anger, and his anger is understandable. A anger that the believer will hopefully work through in his ongoing relationship with God as he works through the bereavement process, whereas the atheistic unbeliever simply has no excuse for his anger in the first place!

      as to your comment: "If God commands as He did the Jews to slaughter children, can it be an absolute moral standard?"

      You really need to get a new argument vel!

      Richard Dawkins Approves Infanticide, not William Lane Craig! (mirror: drcraigvideos)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo

      Delete
  7. The claim\
    It has always struck me as very strange that atheists are, for most part, often very angry with God:

    evidence,a study by Julie Exline,which might be tortured into some atheists.

    Julie Exline on her study:

    To clarify: We are by NO means claiming that all nonbelievers are angry at God (or, more precisely, angry in response to an image or idea of God). We are also not claiming that anger is the primary source of nonbelief. Clearly there are many factors that feed into decisions about whether or not to believe in God: For example, intellectual, social, cultural, and emotional factors could all play a role in religious belief (for believers and nonbelievers alike).

    What we have found is that SOME (not all!) people who do not believe in God report either: a) anger toward God as part of their history or b) anger when prompted to focus on a hypothetical image of God.

    We interpret these findings to mean that the topic of anger toward God may have relevance for at least some nonbelievers; thus nonbelievers should not be automatically excluded from conversations about the topic. Our goal in our studies, then, is to be inclusive rather than leaving nonbelievers out. We recognize, however, that a believer's anger toward God is not the same as anger focused on a hypothetical image of God by an atheist or agnostic.

    Based on comments here and elsewhere, we have made changes to our study to try to improve and clarify the questions intended for atheists and agnostics. We sincerely apologize for any errors or misunderstandings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Listening to your link it is not an absolute moral code not to kill babies if their parents are really,really bad and they happen to have the bad luck to be living for over 400 yrs on land that God gave to someone else. As they say" Sorry about your bad luck,Cannites"

    ReplyDelete
  9. vel you simply are detached from reality to try to deny that many atheists have a irrational hatred towards God! Indeed, I would have never believed such hatred towards God I've seen from many atheists on the internet if I would have not seen it first hand. Your right in the factors may be complex, but none-the-less the irrational hatred is clear for all to see. Like I said, just go over to PZ's little den of vipers and try to defend Intelligent Design and see what results you get. Shoot go to practically any apologetic video on youtube and see how long it takes you to run into irrational hatred towards God by a atheists.

    So vel, you seem very concerned about children being unjustly slaughtered during the ancient history of the Bible, are you also a pro-lifer who is concerned with the present slaughter of millions of unborn children by abortion in America?

    ReplyDelete
  10. No BA, you certainly are correct the some atheists,especially those previously religious might feel that the God they were taught about doesn't exist,might be angry.Exactly at what is the question. Religion which exists , for some.

    But your observation was incorrect without some evidence, the one study's author denied your conclusion and actually acknowledged the legitimacy of criticism of her methodology. And unless you think that atheists who post on the Internet are representive of all atheists, you are drawing a conclusion from weak evidence.

    I wondered when you were going to get to that, well since we have established the the killing of born babies is not an absolute moral code,it would seem unlikely that abortion would be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Vel, since the only atheists I can judge by are the irrationally angry ones I got first hand experience of, I guess I will just have to rely on my 'weak' first hand evidence. Personally, I think you are severely stretching credulity to try to deny what is plainly obvious to anyone involved in these debates with atheists on the internet.

      Delete
    2. 'well since we have established the the killing of born babies is not an absolute moral code it would seem unlikely that abortion would be.'

      So vel, you are okay with infanticide? Apparently this lack of any absolute moral for a child's life, that you have derived from your extremely prejudiced and twisted reading of scripture to support your irrational hatred towards God, only applies to any children you don't personally love and care for!

      Delete
  11. That is a small sample to judge what "most" atheists feel, whether atheists or theists can be pigeon holed on their view on God is another question. Perhaps sweeping generalizations should be avoided especially if used as a basis for conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only deal with the atheists I'm in contact with vel. Perhaps the atheists who don't tend to be so angry are over in the atheists utopia of Russia, North Korea or China somewhere.

      Delete
    2. Well serendipitously vel, this article just came up at ENV where, of all things, a atheist philosopher tries to justify the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists on ID proponenets:

      Anti-ID Philosopher: "Ad hominem" Arguments "Justified" When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/anti-id_philoso060381.html

      You might call it just a coincidence that this article would come up just now, but I see the soft loving hand of God once again, vel.

      When You Know - Inspirational Song
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4209342/

      Delete
    3. It is a free country, but don't complain about being demonized if you do the same,such as implying that atheists are totalitarian or unamerican. There is a higher percentage of atheist in Sweden than China,FYI

      Delete
    4. God helping bolster your case, interesting. I would have hoped that He was more beneficially occupied.

      Delete
    5. imply? I meant to drive the point home not merely imply!

      Atheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU

      Delete
    6. Sorry,I am often accused of being too nice, and giving benefit of the doubt. I apologize for my minimizing your prejudice towards those who do not follow your religion.

      Delete
    7. Did I mention that I think atheists tend to be the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever met in my entire life?

      "Truth is treason in an empire of lies!"
      Ron Paul

      Delete
    8. vel, did you know:

      The New York Times Room for Debate Forum has an interesting symposium on the role of religion in presidential elections. In his contribution, polling expert Andrew Kohut cites a 2007 Pew survey showing that atheism is viewed more negatively by voters than virtually any other possible trait of a presidential candidate. A whopping 63% of respondents said they would be “less likely” to vote for a presidential candidate who “doesn’t believe in God” (3% said they would be more likely). This easily exceeds the percentages who say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who never held elected office (56), a Muslim (46), a homosexual (46), a person who had “used drugs in the past” (45), or a Mormon (30). Opposition to female, black and Hispanic candidates is several times lower (ranging from 4 to 14 percent, though some racists and sexists probably hid their true attitudes from the pollster). A more recent 2011 version of the same survey gets very similar results when it comes to atheists (61%), though there is less hostility towards gays (33%).
      http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/survey-americans-prefer-muslim-president-atheist#

      Delete
  12. So in your link,Casey Luskin decries ad hominem argument invoking the religious aspects of ID then proceeds to argue against evolutionary theory on the religious beliefs of some of its proponents. Classic, God should have given you better material.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So its OK in your book for atheists to ignore evidence (which they do anyway) and to continue ad hominem attacks on ID proponents on Christians (which they do anyway). Its just as well since atheists have ZERO substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism and ad hominem is all they got!

      Delete
  13. Why shouldn't atheists do it, you seem to have no problem doing it and you believe in objective morals,therefore it must be a moral thing to do. And BA, it is foolish to believe that there is zero evidence. Maybe unconvincing,but zero requires you to ignore the reality of biological research.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'it is foolish to believe that there is zero evidence.'

    One would think and yet that stunning fact turns out to be the truth:

    Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    There is not even evidence of JUST ONE functional protein originating by purely neo-Darwinian processes!

    Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222

    much less by purely material processes:

    Origin Of Life - Problems With Proteins - Homochirality - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490

    Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 - Robert Sheldon - May 2010
    Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn't imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/21/homochirality_and_darwin_part_2.thtml

    Dr. Charles Garner on the problem of Chirality in nature and Origin of Life Research - audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-04-12T17_21_16-07_00

    ReplyDelete
  15. Origin of life isn't evolutionary theory,anymore than the manner of manufacture or identity of the designer is to ID

    ReplyDelete
  16. well vel, I did not just show the impossibility of origin of life did I?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While we are on the topic of the impossibility of material processes to account for the origin of life, I would like to say that I firmly believe that the one who defeated death on the cross 2000 years ago is the same one who created photosynthetic life on earth 3.85 billion years ago.

      The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

      In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on for food, uses ‘non-local’ quantum mechanical principles to accomplish photosynthesis. Moreover, this is direct evidence that a non-local, beyond space-time, cause must be responsible for ‘feeding’ all life on earth, since all higher life on earth is eventually completely dependent on this 'beyond space and time'‘photosynthetic energy’ for life:

      Non-Local Quantum Coherence In Photosynthesis - video with notes in description
      http://vimeo.com/30235178

      Unusual Quantum Effect Discovered in Earliest Stages of Photosynthesis - May 2012
      Excerpt: "The behavior we were able to see at these very fast time scales implies a much more sophisticated mixing of electronic states," Tiede said. "It shows us that high-level biological systems could be tapped into very fundamental physics in a way that didn't seem likely or even possible."
      The quantum effects observed in the course of the experiment hint that the natural light-harvesting processes involved in photosynthesis may be more efficient than previously indicated by classical biophysics, said chemist Gary Wiederrecht of Argonne's Center for Nanoscale Materials. "It leaves us wondering: how did Mother Nature create this incredibly elegant solution?" he said.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524092932.htm

      Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Gregory S. Engel, Nature (12 April 2007)
      Photosynthetic complexes are exquisitely tuned to capture solar light efficiently, and then transmit the excitation energy to reaction centres, where long term energy storage is initiated.,,,, This wavelike characteristic of the energy transfer within the photosynthetic complex can explain its extreme efficiency, in that it allows the complexes to sample vast areas of phase space to find the most efficient path. ---- (Conclusion? Obviously Photosynthesis is a brilliant piece of design by "Someone" who even knows how quantum mechanics works.)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429397

      Verse and music:

      John 1:4
      In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

      Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video)
      http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

      Delete
  17. Is the origin of life part of evolutionary theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. vel, you just got to love your theory. I've seen atheists invoke Natural selection whenever they can get away with it to try to explain the origin of life and then quickly retreat, as you are doing now, when the insurmountable problems are brought forth. And origin of life is not the only area that 'slipperiness' is encountered from neo-Darwinists. It permeates the whole framework!

      Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

      Delete
  18. Does ID identify the Designer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You tell me vel, what is your postulated beyond space and time cause for quantum non-locality within life? I can only think of one that does not dissolve into sheer absurdity!

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/29895068

      Delete
    2. Tell me ,BA,does ID pass the pseudoscience test? Isn't the designer comparable to the origin of life?

      Delete
    3. So instead of honestly addressing the question as to what non-loacl cause in responsible for the beyond space and time effect in life you ask another question? And you wonder why people in America have distrust of the intellectual honesty of atheists? ,,, Anyways in your avoidance of the question you ask,,, 'does ID pass the pseudoscience test?'

      The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site
      Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
      http://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist

      Delete
    4. BA ,
      You are like a three year old on a sugar high, since you brought up the theory that evolutionary theory was a pseudoscience ,it seemed polite to address your point. Do you wish me to be impolite?

      Delete
    5. vel, you call me a 3 year old on a sugar high and then imply you are not presently being impolite to me. Is hypocrisy just another thing you lump with your non-absolute moral standard of the slaughter of innocent children?

      Abortion, at 1,200,000 million per year, is the leading cause of death in the United States.
      http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544765_158500824274847_1654573487_n.jpg

      Delete
  19. No moral judgement,Just an observation,since I have observed 3 year olds on a sugar high. I apologize if I offended you, of course I can't be sure that I am really sorry with all those unrandom molecules in my brain. To paraphrase Descartes, I think I'm sorry,therefore I am sorry.

    That said,I don't think that would be hypocrisy, ,now Casey Luskin's condemnation of ad hom then proceeding to use it would be an example.Another example might be condenming you as dishonest for not answering a question,when in fact I had avoided answering a question by changing to a completely random subject. Theoretically at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why should you be offended at Casey? What objective moral do you wish to invoke so as to make your judgement binding to other humans?

      i.e. dog, tail, chase, circle,,,

      Funny dog chasing tail comedy
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A4-lRwOWvk

      Delete
  20. Casey Luskin's hypocrisy doesn't offend me, in fact it is interesting. Have I given you the impression that I think my sensibilities should be universal? However in certain instances that laissez faire attitude might be overridden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So morals are only universally binding when you use them to argue against ID or Christianity, so as to enable you to try to make a judgement on good and evil, but once that dirty business is done then evil and good don't really exist so as to apply to you personally? ,,, Glad to see you apply your moral standard on hypocrisy so unevenly! :)

      dog, tail, chase, circle!

      Delete
  21. First of all,what do morals have to do with ID? Am I missing something? Whether Casey Luskin is a hypocrite does not affect the accuracy of ID. That is point of science.

    True,the God of the OT is problematic for me, but that does not diminish the message of Jesus. But if you wish to claim that the source of absolute values will use animals to kill children for mocking a prophet, good luck.

    BA, you seem to have a hard time accepting that there are other ways to live a good life other than your way. I don't have that problem,nor do I need to label everything as either good or evil. So no,I am not saying Christianity is bad,but rather people can do bad things in the name of Christianity. Or good things.

    That is why this whole mantra of objective good seems like counting the number of angels on a pinhead, as long as humans are involved subjectivity is involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vel, whatever, your post is just a bunch of rationalizations that do not diminish your hypocrisy you have made in your moral judgments thus far (against infanticide but support the wholesale slaughter of children by abortion)., but if I were a dishonest atheist as you are I guess I can't really blame you for playing games with objective morals, and for you playing extremely coy to your supposed superior objective moral basis that allows you to judge Almighty God, as you can't provide ANY substantiating scientific evidence for your religion of Darwinism, and thus word games and deception about supposed moral evils of the Old Testament and ID proponents is all you really have left to use isn't it ?!?

      dog, tail, chase, circle!

      Delete
    2. My wish? My wish is that you would stop playing games and get honest with yourself and others, And hopefully, most of all, come to a personal relationship with Christ, who really did defeat sin and death upon the cross, for our behalf so that we may inherit eternal life.

      Vel, the following is the number one problem in physics, and mathematics, today, the reconciliation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

      The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

      That the resurrection event of Christ would even offer a very credible resolution to the number one problem in physics and mathematics today should not even be on the radar scope of reason as far as the atheists mentality is concerned! That it is even on the radar scope of reason should be a great source of wonder for you, and at least persuade you to investigate this whole eternal life/Christianity thing more carefully and honestly than it seems to me you have been so far.

      Music and Verse:

      Alison Krauss - Down in the River to Pray
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgVL-rBq9Fw

      Luke 24:5
      And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?

      Delete
    3. corrected link:

      Alison Krauss - Down in the River to Pray
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvYadad-x5Y

      Delete
    4. Love Allison Krauss,saw her with Robert Plant at ACL, Union Station was the backup band, the next act was John Fogerty ,it was about perfect.

      Delete
  22. Nice discussion, sorry to interrupt. Transit viewing was a great success. Get this, days before- cloudy. All day yesterday -cloudy until 3PM.
    Around 3 PM sky cleared perfectly so I set everything up and tested for viewing which started at 6PM till sunset. No wind , no humidity, 18-20C.We had mini street party, many friends and neighbors watched.
    It clouded over again around 10PM-I couldn’t believe it.
    I owe Him big time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Terrific ,I hoped you would report,saw a few pictures on the web. What kind of scope did you use? Any pictures?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Velikovsky,

    I think you had to miss it because of work, is that right? May I tell you something important? Work is overrated.

    My setup is modest. A simple 130mm reflector on equatorial mount with a small selection of eyepieces and filters. Pictures were taken through eyepiece so they are not the greatest although it's easily visible what's going on. Next on the list to buy is camera adapter.

    For viewing I used low magnification eyepiece with good eye relief so people had easy time seeing. I didn't allow anybody to bother me during ingress because I wanted to see all the effects.
    After that it becomes pretty simple:a small disc traveling across Sun until sunset. Lots of neighbors came by with kids and event turned into a party.

    What is your setup?

    ReplyDelete